jayjacobus wrote: ↑Sun Dec 29, 2019 7:07 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 29, 2019 10:26 am
- 1. What we perceived as reality out there are constructed by our brain via evolutionary drives. They are merely virtual interfaces to facilitate survival.
2. Space and Time are human constructs via evolutionary drives.
3. Physical objects do not exist if humans do not observed them, including the pre-existing objects like the moon, sun and the likes.
However Hoffman believe there is Objective Reality [reality-in-itself] out there but evolution has hidden its truth from us.
Seemingly evolution is not interested in the truth of objective reality.
Interestingly Hoffman points 1-3 above resonate with Kant's theories.
However, Kant went further, where he demonstrated even reality-in-itself do not exists as real. The idea of the thing-in-itself when reified is an illusion.
Views?
1. The brain creates representations of reality but the representations reveal actual characteristics of reality.
2. Space and time didn't change because of humans. No human can construct space and time.
3. If physical objects don't exist, what is observed are not physical objects.
If you adore the simulation theory, my first answer must change but statements 2 and 3 are the same.
1. I get your point, "what is perceived is
NOT That-which-is-perceived." This meant there is something real out there independent out of the mind that is perceived.
Philosophically, this is the position of the Philosophical Realist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
Philosophical Realism is opposed by Philosophical Anti-Realism and this dichotomy and very polemical topic had been debated by the Greek philosopher more that 2000 years ago and the Hindus & Buddhist philosopher longer than 3000 years ago.
Point is the Philosophical Realist position is based on obvious common sense, i.e. there are thing out there independent of the human body and mind.
But the Anti-Realist look beyond common sense into deeper philosophical perspectives which is what philosophy-proper should be doing.
The point with the anti-realist position is, there is something happening, the process, before 'perception' takes place.
This process is emergence which manifest things [emergent] onto human conscious to be perceived.
As such "That-which-is-perceived" is an
emergent out of interaction with the human self [& evolutionary forces] and it is not something that is already pre-existing to be perceived.
2. The above emergence process is also applicable to Space and Time.
Because Space and Time are emergent with the human self, whatever things emerging out of space and time are not absolutely independent of the human self.
3. What is observed as physical objects do exists are real [i.e. relatively] but these physical objects are emergents out of iterative interactions with the human self.
Note my reply to Henry Quirk above;
viewtopic.php?p=436717#p436717
Re the apple you ate;
Consider this, it would be more realistic for you to say;
I ate [interacted] with that identified
"cluster of molecules, atoms, protons, electrons and quarks which could be waves or particles"
that to say, I ate that 'apple'.
In addition there is a
continuum of space and time, interchanging quarks between you and the supposedly external apple.
It is like an iceberg [cluster of H20] which is seemingly independent of the sea or ocean [also a cluster of H20], but in reality the iceberg [h20] is not independent of the sea [H20] it is in. A hotter sea will just melt the iceberg and it is vanished.
Similarly, a physical object [quarks] cannot be absolute independent of the human-self [also made of quarks] and the whole of relative-reality [also made of quarks].
